DAINIS ORTEGA AMUGUIS February 12, 2018

Laws on Information Technology

Soledad VS People GR No. 184274 (2011)

Case Digest

Facts:

In June 2004, private complainant Henry C. Yu received was offered by Tess or

Juliet Villar (later identified as Rochelle Bagaporo), a Citifinancing loan assistance at a
low interest rate. Yu invited Bagaporo his office in Quezon City where he was indorsed
to her immediate boss, a certain Arthur (later identified as petitioner). Yu submitted
various documents, such as his Globe handyphone original platinum gold card,
identification cards and statements of accounts to a certain “Carlo” (later identified asa
Ronald Gobenchiong) upon instruction of Soledad. Yu followed up his loan status but he
failed to get in touch with either Soledad or Gobenchiong.

In August 2004, private complainant received his Globe handyphone statement

of account wherein he was charged for two (2) mobile phone numbers which were not
his. Upon verification with the phone company, private complainant learned that he had
additional five (5) mobile numbers in his name, and the application for said cellular
phone lines bore the picture of petitioner and his forged signature. Private complainant
also checked with credit card companies and learned that his Citibank Credit Card
database information was altered and he had a credit card application with Metrobank.

Thereafter, private complainant and Metrobank’s Junior Assistant Manager

Jefferson Devilleres lodged a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
which conducted an entrapment operation. The operation led to the apprehension of the
petitioner.

Issue: Whether or not Soledad is guilty of Violation of Section 9(e) RA No. 8484
(possessing a counterfeit access device or access device fraudulently applied for)

Ruling:

Yes, the trial court convicted petitioner of possession of the credit card fraudulently
applied for, penalized by R.A. No. 8484. The law, however, does not define the word
possession. Thus, we use the term as defined in Article 523 of the Civil Code, that is,
possession is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right. The acquisition of
possession involves two elements: the corpus or the material holding of the thing, and
the animus possidendi or the intent to possess it. Animus possidendi is a state of mind,
the presence or determination of which is largely dependent on attendant events in
each case. It may be inferred from the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused,
as well as the surrounding circumstance.

Petitioner materially held the envelope containing the credit card with the intent to
possess. Contrary to petitioner’s contention that the credit card never came into his
possession because it was only delivered to him, the above narration shows that he, in
fact, did an active part in acquiring possession by presenting the identification cards
purportedly showing his identity as Henry Yu. Certainly, he had the intention to possess
the same. Had he not actively participated, the envelope would not have been given to
him. Moreover, his signature on the acknowledgment receipt indicates that there was
delivery and that possession was transferred to him as the recipient. Undoubtedly,
petitioner knew that the envelope contained the Metrobank credit card, as clearly
indicated in the acknowledgment receipt, coupled with the fact that he applied for it
using the identity of private complainant.